“the baby boom cohort will overwhelm it if taxes are not raised, benefits reduced, or both.”
That was my point. The system is flawed but if revenues are kept at a level that supports benefits the system would be sustainable. The system will have to be tweaked as the underlying assumptions change.
Much of it depends on the level of economic growth.
This is just moot anyway because the system has been screwed up and any attempt to fix it will be sabotaged by the politicians. In a political sense, not a theoretical sense, you are 100% correct.
In 1950 there were 16 workers to every retiree, today there are 3.3; and by 2030 there will be two. The entitlement programs will impose a tremendous tax burden on our children and grandchildren if not reformed, i.e., benefits reduced.
Any system can be made sustainable if you adjust revenue and benefits. Raise the retirement age to 75 and solvency will last for some time. Or double the payroll tax. Or means test benefits. Or change the COLA formula. Or go to personal accounts. But these kinds of solutions run into the face of strong policial headwinds. The politicians are circumstribed by what they can do.
I would prefer privatizing SS and just have a small defined benefit program to cover survivor benefits and disabilities. Trying to fix a flawed system that does nothing for personal wealth accummulation and makes people dependent upon government that can change the rules any time it wants is not worth the effort. You could pay the maximum contribution into SS for 50 years and not collect a cent except for a small burial allowance. SS is just part of the welfare state. It is a Ponzi scheme.